The owner of a property could block or jam certain portions of the RF spectrum.
Pertinent to this discussion, a theatre or a restuarant could make itself cellphone free. But if people start walking around blocking cell access in places they don't have the authority to, the authorities can will start apprehending and prosecuting.

So let me get this straight. You're criticising us for locking away possible terrorists, but your country gives people twenty years in prison for disrupting a phone call, whereas here it's only a misdemeanor?

So let me get this straight. You're criticising us for locking away possible terrorists, but your country gives people twenty years in prison for disrupting a phone call, whereas here it's only a misdemeanor?

I'm not sure where to start with the misconceptions...
No, I'm merely remarking on the US' practise of arresting people for "identity theft, document fraud and immigration violations" and calling it a victory over terrorism.

'Up to...", "max" as in 'maximum'. And yes, Canadian laws are tougher. Which might have something to do with our lower per capita crime rate and prison occupancy.

Interfering with RF communications is taken much more seriously in my country, it would seem. Not surprisingly, as we rely on radios a lot more. Lives depend on them.

Nope, I sure don't. Because they seem to mean opposite what their dictionary definitions mean.

Conservatives should want to preserve the current order, and liberals should want to change it... Yet liberals are all for more government interference, and conservatives are generally against more government. Except when more government could interfere with our private lives, then both sides are totally for more government. But at least the conservatives on the whole aren't pushing for a total Nanny State.

Inconveniently the parties too often move to the other side of those black and white liberal/conservative lines. The republicans are seen as conservative and are moving us toward the nanny state right now, for instance.

The distinction used to mean something... but that day is long gone. Now it best serves for insulting and/or propaganda, since nobody can really refute.

Yah, theve pretty much summed it up. It's hard today to say your conservitive or liberal, because the definitions have been so twisted and mutated.

But on the over all, the traditional role of liberals is to urge for change in any way, and conservitives to look at things from afar and make sure the change is good. Or at least thats my view. But then again, those definitions don't really hold meaning any more.

Gah. I should have been born a generation or two sooner for so many reasons.